Sunday 17 November 2013 14.29 EST
First published on Sunday 17 November 2013 14.29 EST

Does the Guardian use too many swearwords? "It has to be said that for many of us aggressive bad language still grates," one reader wrote recently, noting that this newspaper easily outstrips all others in the casual deployment of swearwords.

Our coverage of the court martial of a marine sergeant who shot a wounded Afghan prisoner drew complaints last week because we spelled out what the soldier said after he had fired into the man's chest: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil, you cunt." The expletive appeared on the front page of the paper and was repeated in each of the two stories published on an inside page.

Some readers found the repetition offensive and unnecessary; others thought the word should not have been used uncensored at all, particularly on the front page. The repetition could, and perhaps should, have been avoided, but the unvarnished use of the c-word was consistent with our editorial guidance on swearwords: "Never use asterisks … which are just a cop-out."

That guidance also states that there is almost never a case for using a swearword outside direct quotes and that the stronger the swearword, the harder we ought to think about using it. It was written about 15 years ago, when fuck (or variations on it) appeared in the paper about 400 times in a year and cunt fewer than 30 times. The corresponding figures for the past 12 months are 800 and 60. That would be much higher if usage on the website were added in.

The use of swearwords outside direct quotes is on the rise in the Guardian, as a diary column in the Times Literary Supplement noted tartly: "We wish the paper had a swear box, into which an expensively educated journalist would put £5 each time he gave himself a cheap thrill."

Several readers complained when a blogpost, hosted on the Guardian website, used the word "headfuck" to describe – ill-advisedly but aptly – the way some sea slugs mate. On the other hand, no one wrote to us after a writer reported that she was "fed up with being the fucking gracious loser" when she missed out on an award.

Huge changes have taken place in the newspaper industry in the 15 years since our guidelines on swearing were formulated. As Katharine Viner, editor-in-chief of Guardian Australia, said in a recent speech, the open web is fundamentally redrawing our relationship with our audience. We are no longer all-seeing, all-knowing journalists delivering words from on high for readers to take in passively, but encouraging our audience to interact with us in an array of ways.

That is changing the way we speak to our readers and encouraging a less formal, more chatty tone in which writers might feel swearwords sit more easily. We allow readers to swear, too, when commenting on articles, although not if the words are abuse directed towards other people, or gratuitously offensive.

When I asked Guardian editorial staff for their views, most of those who responded said they thought we used bad language too liberally. Of course, it was a self-selecting survey and those who opposed swearing were probably more likely to respond.

One commented: "I think we should still aim to be a family newspaper. I know lots of families who try to teach kids that, while they might hear, say, the f-word in the playground, it's not acceptable everywhere and can sound aggressive and hard-edged in public."

Another, who described herself as "an excessively sweary person", said she tried to limit her swearing to close friends and hated seeing swearwords in the Guardian. "We employ and commission some of the best wordsmiths in the world: I don't think it's too much to ask them to come up with alternatives that have just as much impact."

Some thought that context and tone were key, and that language that would not be acceptable in a more formal article could pass in a blog or music review.

Paul MacInnes, the editor of the Guardian's weekly listings magazine, the Guide, takes that view and says a demotic style suits its format. "We use an informal, playful tone that includes some swearwords. It's a punchy, direct argot. We're not trying to be cool or clever; we're using the kind of words our readers would use in everyday speech."

On the other hand, one of the editors of the website's front page says he avoids any swearwords on our "shop window", where readers haven't opted in to any story but see a range of headlines and trails.

The Family section recently opted to transcribe a swearword, which made three appearances in an article headed "Mum, what's the worst swearword?", as c*nt. The section's editor said the desk talked at length about whether they should use asterisks, despite the style guide ruling, and decided the use of one highlighted the comedic nature of the article. Mostly, though, they felt that spelling the word out would be inappropriate in the Family section.

Our style editor, David Marsh, believes the same standards should be applied across all our output, and that casual use of swearwords detracts from their impact when we do have good reason to use them, as in the case of the marine sergeant in Afghanistan, or in reporting the words on which John Terry's trial and FA disciplinary hearing hinged last year.

In my view the robust guidance in our style guide has stood the test of time. It is not overly prescriptive and allows room for editorial judgment.

That should be exercised cautiously. We might use swearwords when talking to our friends and families, but most of us wouldn't swear casually to strangers and we should think carefully before we swear to our readers too.